Let's say you just happen to "know" the URL of bbc.com/news or some other news website, and you go there and read an article directly. Since the articles are not what is removed, they are still available.
I didn't use google - so I don't know the story was the subject of a "right to be stupid" link removal; am I now guilty of having that dreaded "forbidden knowledge" ???
Have I broken the CFAA by typing in a real URL instead of using search? After all, if you type "1234" at the end of an url that was "....?account=1233", that is hacking and gets you a nice prison term.
So how much of an URL can I type without violating CFAA? Can I read an article that I don't know has been "delinked"?
Law enforcement agencies from around the US are reporting record levels of income from their newest revenue source. Since they were unable to gain any traction with their "Respect us DAMMIT" campaign, they implemented the Spanish "lack of respect" fine structure, and have been proud to report that its revenues have surpassed even those of red-light camera systems.
Instead of whining that they can find no evidence of wrong-doing by the agencies they are supposed to oversee, they can turn that around and state that they can find no evidence of the agencies working within their mandates, and therefore should be de-funded and shut-down immediately.
They give us no evidence to the contrary, we must assume that they are violating every rule, and so far, that is what all the evidence that eventually comes out shows.
If the agencies can't PROVE that they are working within the rules - bye bye.
1) It is illegal to NOT link to our sites and every article. For every non-published link you will be fined $150,000. 2) Links MUST include snippets. 3) Tax MUST be paid on those snippets each and every time those snippets show up in search results whether or not the user clicks on them or even sees the page that the link would be on.
There you go. Shuts down all linking services.
As there would be NO more search engines, users would have to type URLs directly. And since mis-typing a URL is considered a felony breach of the CFAA, we can put all those pesky internet users into our lovely for-profit prison system.
The remaining Luddites will watch only the approved 3 channels of news and entertainment, only read news from approved media sources, purchase the new records that are released every week, and go to the movies on Saturday Night.
All better now - back to the "good old days" of a century ago...
We the voters need much earlier primaries with a "none of the above" on the ballot - which must force the party to go and get a new slate of candidates - but we'd have to pass a law making it illegal to change your name to "none of the above".
As all we get now is "choose the least offensive from the following list" we really have damn little choice.
And this election is shaping up to be a barrel scraper...
Scenario #1: I have crapcast cable, connected to a dedicated computer (their set-top box), which connects to an HDMI monitor to show selected entertainment which is streamed to their dedicated computer over that cable. This is considered good and legal.
Scenario #2 I have crapcast cable, connected to my computer, which connects to an HDMI monitor to show entertainment which is streamed to my PC over that cable via a 3rd party service. This is considered bad and illegal.
Seems to me that I am still paying for a digital cable to deliver digital packets of information which I have paid to receive.